I remember 1984. Vaguely. I turned 23 that year. The movie adaptation was coming out, but I decided to read the novel first. It seemed the "intellectual" thing to do. I went to see the movie after I had finished. It's hard to say which was more depressing, the bleak world described by Orwell or the bleak world interpreted by film director. Both conveyed the sense of despair admirably, and I set aside both the film and the book feeling uplifted, knowing that I would never be part of such a world. It was a rare moment of optimism in my life, and thus doomed to ring false eventually.
One of the major concepts dealt with in the novel is "thought crime," or the idea that simply considering an act against authority is a punishable offense. Acting on the thought was a secondary offense, compounding your guilt. In Orwell's world, the authority was the Party, led by Big Brother, and he was always watching. There were microphones and cameras everywhere. Everyone had a television where the viewer worked both ways, and you couldn't turn it off. Yes, big brother was watching alright.
Late in the novel, the main character gets himself into criminal activity against the Party. He has an unsanctioned affair. He is, of course, arrested. The party is completely atheist and has no morals, but they do have rules, and no infraction can be tolerated. He is not be killed, however. Not immediately, anyway. The Party has learned through experience that killing its opponents makes them into martyrs, and gives enemies a cause to focus around. Instead, those who are arrested are tortured until they are broken in mind and spirit. When that is complete, they are allowed to recover a semblance of a healthy appearance so that they can publicly recant their treason. Then, at some later time when their misdeeds are no longer remembered, the Party will dispose them. And what might have been a rallying point for opposition instead becomes a symbol of how futile it is to resist.
Fast forward...
Last year a Christian owned bakery declined to make a wedding cake to celebrate a lesbian union. There were plenty of other bakers who would have been happy to accommodate the pair, but that wasn't the point. The two sued the owners under state law for discrimination. There was also a campaign of threats against the family and against vendors who business with them. Additional details are available here:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/21/christian-bakery-guilty-violating-civil-rights-lesbian-couple/
The position of the Oregon attorney general is as clear as it is chilling. "Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that
folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal
is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”
"Rehabilitate" is a fine word in some contexts. Its usage here, however, is simply a euphemism for surrendering principles of belief and conscience, rights fought and died for, and guaranteed in our Constitution. I find in our modern society that Christians are being increasingly identified as in need of "rehabilitation." There are several other cases in the link above. I'm sure that I will get around to discussing others as time goes by.
The important thing to remember at present is that as we have accepted Christ, the rehabilitation process has already begun. He is the Great Physician, and it is our faith in Him that will lead us to ultimate recovery. If this is a time of testing, then let it also be a time of faith increasing, of seeking wisdom, and looking for ways to overcome evil with good. In this way, we will honor Christ, and our nation.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Sunday, January 26, 2014
The Morality of Income Inequality
I can still remember the day that I learned the difference between a wasp and a butterfly. I was about four years old and playing in our screened-in-porch when I spied a large insect crawling on the inside of the door. Curious, I wandered over to check it out. It was yellow and black, but it was much bigger than any of the bees that I had ever seen before, and the shape wasn't quite right. If you've ever seen a mud dauber, you know what I mean. So, using four-year-old logic, I decided that what I was looking at was a different kind of butterfly, and, since I knew that butterflies were harmless, I reached for it.
It wasn't one of the more pleasant lessons that I've had in my life, but it was one of the best. Quick. Effective. Both of us (the wasp and I) survived. Would that every important life lesson could be taught so quickly and well.
I learned that day bad decisions lead to bad outcomes. I'm not talking about bad in the sense of "evil" necessarily, though that can come into play. I'm talking about the kind of bad decisions most of us can and do make on a regular basis. It can be anything from a mistake in judgment due to ignorance (thinking a wasp is a butterfly, for example) to loaning the rent money to a friend who has an investment that's a "sure thing." We put off our homework, eat too much, push the accelerator a little too hard. And while often there are no immediate consequences, most of us realize that sooner or later a bill is going to come due. In fact, we count on it. If there are no consequences for actions, then there is no civilized society.
Right now, the concept of "income inequality" is being widely discussed in political and news circles across the country. Many people seem to think that there is a great moral tragedy occurring that some people make a small fraction of what others make in terms of income. (These are often the same people that cry that religion has no place in the public square, but we'll leave that for another day.) I see a great many moral tragedies in our nation today, but income inequality doesn't seem to find a place on the list.
As human beings, each made in the image of God, each of us has infinite worth. There is no difference between the shop clerk and the CEO, the astronaut and analyst, the teacher and the truck driver. Because of that, it can be tempting to view great differences in their earnings as unjust. But such a view is not supported Biblically.
The first thing to remember is that the income a person receives does not reflect the value of the person, but the value of the person's labor. This is influenced by a great many things, and a large percentage of them are under the control of the person himself. The skills that we choose to develop, the course that we take in school, and the work habits that we develop along the way all play a part in how valuable our labor becomes to current and future employers.
Another thing to remember is that, with very few exceptions, people do not control their own salaries any more than businesses control their customers. That implies that if someone is being paid well, their employer expects their labor to earn them even more. If they are paid poorly, their employer expects little benefit. If the person cannot make the employer enough to cover the labor cost, there is no reason to hire the worker at all.
The Bible addresses income inequality from a number of different causes. Proverbs notes frequently that foolish behavior will result in poverty. In Deuteronomy, God warns the people through Moses that righteous living will result in prosperity while depravity will lead to ruin. If we take these warnings literally, then not only is income inequality not immoral, it is part of God's plan for teaching his followers and others the value of following God's laws. Like my younger self learning not to grab the wasp, few things can make the truth so plain as a difference in outcomes.
None of this is to say that some people are not the victim of bad luck and circumstance. Where that is the case, it behooves everyone in society to find ways to offer those who want to improve their lives the opportunity to do so. But I can't think of anyone who just "knows what people should be earning." That means that any law trying to reduce inequality is going to be driven by politics instead of reality. I can't think of a better way to destroy the working incentive of the nation.
It is good and proper to honor work with just compensation. It is also good and proper to encourage people to pursue more value and difficult skills by offering better compensation. It is moral to pay well for loyal, faithful, and excellent service, and little for poor and haphazard service. To try to change that paradigm is to invite further ruin on the nation. For Christians to try to promote such a thing in Christ's name does our Lord and Savior no honor.
It wasn't one of the more pleasant lessons that I've had in my life, but it was one of the best. Quick. Effective. Both of us (the wasp and I) survived. Would that every important life lesson could be taught so quickly and well.
I learned that day bad decisions lead to bad outcomes. I'm not talking about bad in the sense of "evil" necessarily, though that can come into play. I'm talking about the kind of bad decisions most of us can and do make on a regular basis. It can be anything from a mistake in judgment due to ignorance (thinking a wasp is a butterfly, for example) to loaning the rent money to a friend who has an investment that's a "sure thing." We put off our homework, eat too much, push the accelerator a little too hard. And while often there are no immediate consequences, most of us realize that sooner or later a bill is going to come due. In fact, we count on it. If there are no consequences for actions, then there is no civilized society.
Right now, the concept of "income inequality" is being widely discussed in political and news circles across the country. Many people seem to think that there is a great moral tragedy occurring that some people make a small fraction of what others make in terms of income. (These are often the same people that cry that religion has no place in the public square, but we'll leave that for another day.) I see a great many moral tragedies in our nation today, but income inequality doesn't seem to find a place on the list.
As human beings, each made in the image of God, each of us has infinite worth. There is no difference between the shop clerk and the CEO, the astronaut and analyst, the teacher and the truck driver. Because of that, it can be tempting to view great differences in their earnings as unjust. But such a view is not supported Biblically.
The first thing to remember is that the income a person receives does not reflect the value of the person, but the value of the person's labor. This is influenced by a great many things, and a large percentage of them are under the control of the person himself. The skills that we choose to develop, the course that we take in school, and the work habits that we develop along the way all play a part in how valuable our labor becomes to current and future employers.
Another thing to remember is that, with very few exceptions, people do not control their own salaries any more than businesses control their customers. That implies that if someone is being paid well, their employer expects their labor to earn them even more. If they are paid poorly, their employer expects little benefit. If the person cannot make the employer enough to cover the labor cost, there is no reason to hire the worker at all.
The Bible addresses income inequality from a number of different causes. Proverbs notes frequently that foolish behavior will result in poverty. In Deuteronomy, God warns the people through Moses that righteous living will result in prosperity while depravity will lead to ruin. If we take these warnings literally, then not only is income inequality not immoral, it is part of God's plan for teaching his followers and others the value of following God's laws. Like my younger self learning not to grab the wasp, few things can make the truth so plain as a difference in outcomes.
None of this is to say that some people are not the victim of bad luck and circumstance. Where that is the case, it behooves everyone in society to find ways to offer those who want to improve their lives the opportunity to do so. But I can't think of anyone who just "knows what people should be earning." That means that any law trying to reduce inequality is going to be driven by politics instead of reality. I can't think of a better way to destroy the working incentive of the nation.
It is good and proper to honor work with just compensation. It is also good and proper to encourage people to pursue more value and difficult skills by offering better compensation. It is moral to pay well for loyal, faithful, and excellent service, and little for poor and haphazard service. To try to change that paradigm is to invite further ruin on the nation. For Christians to try to promote such a thing in Christ's name does our Lord and Savior no honor.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Is God the King?
There is a debate among Christians today about the nature of God and what His role is toward humanity. And, as is often the case, the dividing line is faith. The imperative question: Is God the King?
If God is the King, then He has acted and will continue to act as a king acts. He is able. He is powerful. He is faithful. His is just, but is standards are demanding. He is merciful, but He will see his will done. He keeps his promises, and all that we know about him comes from him.
The God I worship spoke a universe into creation and banished darkness with a sentence. He formed man from dust, and completed the work with woman. He knows the number of the stars in sky, for He made each one, and He knows me by name. My God is awesome. He has prepared a future for me of many blessings. I know this because He promised all this in his word, and He promised his word would never pass away.
There is another God worshiped by Christians. He is not the King, though. I am not really sure that He is God. Because while the God I know can command the storm and raise the dead, the God they claim cannot even manage dictation. The scriptures, they say, though divinely inspired, were nevertheless dependent on men and corrupted by men. They were influenced by the social values and prejudices of the times. God was powerless to stop it.
Think about it: The God who saw Jonah heading away from his assigned task, and ordered a storm to stop the ship, a great fish to swallow the prophet: powerless. A God who ordered a strict Jewish prophet to marry a prostitute, yet unable to get those who record the scriptures to overcome their social values. A King who told his servants they had to face death over and over for his sake supposedly incapable of getting men to faithfully record his Word.
And it's not as though this is a trivial thing. The emphasis that God placed on it, reaffirmed through Christ, is clear: We do not live simply by bread, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. These were the scriptures that Moses commanded the people to discuss when they went in and out, when they got up and lay down, in all aspects of life. More than that - these are our life.
If we cannot trust the scriptures, each and every one, how do we know we can trust any of them? How can we know where the truth begins and the lies end? What do we base that decision on?
If we are the ones making that decision, then aren't we saying we have more faith in ourselves than in God? Seriously. If we have more faith in our ability to discern what is "true" in the Bible than we have in God's power to direct his prophets, what does that say about our faith in God? Is that an awesome God? Is that a God that can rescue anyone? Or is that more like the description of the idols in the Old Testament, the gods that can neither see nor here nor move.
As it was when the Hebrews entered the Promised Land, so it is with each new generation. We all have to decide which "God" we will serve. For more than a generation now, Christians have become very comfortable with the "friend" we have in Jesus. I think it's time to reassert our faith in Christ as King.
If God is the King, then He has acted and will continue to act as a king acts. He is able. He is powerful. He is faithful. His is just, but is standards are demanding. He is merciful, but He will see his will done. He keeps his promises, and all that we know about him comes from him.
The God I worship spoke a universe into creation and banished darkness with a sentence. He formed man from dust, and completed the work with woman. He knows the number of the stars in sky, for He made each one, and He knows me by name. My God is awesome. He has prepared a future for me of many blessings. I know this because He promised all this in his word, and He promised his word would never pass away.
There is another God worshiped by Christians. He is not the King, though. I am not really sure that He is God. Because while the God I know can command the storm and raise the dead, the God they claim cannot even manage dictation. The scriptures, they say, though divinely inspired, were nevertheless dependent on men and corrupted by men. They were influenced by the social values and prejudices of the times. God was powerless to stop it.
Think about it: The God who saw Jonah heading away from his assigned task, and ordered a storm to stop the ship, a great fish to swallow the prophet: powerless. A God who ordered a strict Jewish prophet to marry a prostitute, yet unable to get those who record the scriptures to overcome their social values. A King who told his servants they had to face death over and over for his sake supposedly incapable of getting men to faithfully record his Word.
And it's not as though this is a trivial thing. The emphasis that God placed on it, reaffirmed through Christ, is clear: We do not live simply by bread, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. These were the scriptures that Moses commanded the people to discuss when they went in and out, when they got up and lay down, in all aspects of life. More than that - these are our life.
If we cannot trust the scriptures, each and every one, how do we know we can trust any of them? How can we know where the truth begins and the lies end? What do we base that decision on?
If we are the ones making that decision, then aren't we saying we have more faith in ourselves than in God? Seriously. If we have more faith in our ability to discern what is "true" in the Bible than we have in God's power to direct his prophets, what does that say about our faith in God? Is that an awesome God? Is that a God that can rescue anyone? Or is that more like the description of the idols in the Old Testament, the gods that can neither see nor here nor move.
As it was when the Hebrews entered the Promised Land, so it is with each new generation. We all have to decide which "God" we will serve. For more than a generation now, Christians have become very comfortable with the "friend" we have in Jesus. I think it's time to reassert our faith in Christ as King.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
The Concept of the King Part 4: There can be only one King for each of us
Who is your king?
Everyone has one. We might not call him a king (or her a queen, if you prefer), but we each have one authority that we answer to, one that transcends all others. Humans are made that way. Christ proclaimed that we cannot serve two masters. There is one, and only one, that we defer to above all others, albeit imperfectly at times. The question for all of us who claim Christ then becomes is Christ really that king?
A friend who taught me years ago described it this way: If you can think of something that you would not give up for God, then that is your god. While that can answer the question in some cases, it can be very hard to give an honest answer to that question, even to ourselves. A good deal of our lives is not about what we give up, but what we give, and then manner that we give. Looking at my own life, I prefer to think of it this way: Your God is the one you seek to please.
That sounds like a simple enough principle, but it is not one that people take to readily. While God loves us unconditionally, he has no trouble distinguishing between the people He loves and the works that He does not. This isn't the elementary school talent show where everyone gets a prize just for showing up. We're not doing favors for a friend down on his luck. We are offering service to the King. It has to be done right.
The Bible says that without faith, it is impossible to please God. The Bible also says that believing "in God" is not enough. We have to believe God. We have to be prepared to take him at his word.
Everyone has one. We might not call him a king (or her a queen, if you prefer), but we each have one authority that we answer to, one that transcends all others. Humans are made that way. Christ proclaimed that we cannot serve two masters. There is one, and only one, that we defer to above all others, albeit imperfectly at times. The question for all of us who claim Christ then becomes is Christ really that king?
A friend who taught me years ago described it this way: If you can think of something that you would not give up for God, then that is your god. While that can answer the question in some cases, it can be very hard to give an honest answer to that question, even to ourselves. A good deal of our lives is not about what we give up, but what we give, and then manner that we give. Looking at my own life, I prefer to think of it this way: Your God is the one you seek to please.
That sounds like a simple enough principle, but it is not one that people take to readily. While God loves us unconditionally, he has no trouble distinguishing between the people He loves and the works that He does not. This isn't the elementary school talent show where everyone gets a prize just for showing up. We're not doing favors for a friend down on his luck. We are offering service to the King. It has to be done right.
The Bible says that without faith, it is impossible to please God. The Bible also says that believing "in God" is not enough. We have to believe God. We have to be prepared to take him at his word.
The Concept of the King Part 3: The King Stands Apart
It doesn't really matter whether you are talking about a king or president, the general of an army, the captain of a ship. There is always a separate place for the one in charge. Part of it relates to status. The palace, or residence, is part of the office, an acknowledgement that those who make the grander decisions deserve the grander surroundings. But there is more to it.
There is something in human nature that tends to trivialize the familiar. No matter how grandiose, how impressive a sight or personage, we become inured over time. It doesn't simply apply to people. Most of us tend to become accustomed to most things around us, no matter how special, if we are exposed often enough. We lose the mystery. We lose the wonder, the awe. And perhaps this trait, more than simply a desire for the largest house on the block, set the custom among men of the leader dwelling apart. Or perhaps it was the reflection of a different kind of king.
When God established the people of Israel in the promised land, He too had a dwelling place apart from the people. They could approach Him at the tabernacle, and later the temple, but only so near. Beyond a certain point, only the priests were permitted. And beyond that, in the Holy of Holies, only the High Priest dared to go once a year to make atonement for the people. A rope was tied about his waist in case he offended during the sacrifice.
The people of Israel were called to present themselves to God at sacrifices and festivals several times a year. In human realms, things were seldom so regular. Depending on how large the kingdom and where a person lived, you could pass your entire life and hear little about the king. Or you might see him at a distance, but few would ever really know him. And this takes us to one of the great tragedies in modern Christianity: So many who profess to believe do not know the one they claim. More than that, they refuse to know Him.
There is something in human nature that tends to trivialize the familiar. No matter how grandiose, how impressive a sight or personage, we become inured over time. It doesn't simply apply to people. Most of us tend to become accustomed to most things around us, no matter how special, if we are exposed often enough. We lose the mystery. We lose the wonder, the awe. And perhaps this trait, more than simply a desire for the largest house on the block, set the custom among men of the leader dwelling apart. Or perhaps it was the reflection of a different kind of king.
When God established the people of Israel in the promised land, He too had a dwelling place apart from the people. They could approach Him at the tabernacle, and later the temple, but only so near. Beyond a certain point, only the priests were permitted. And beyond that, in the Holy of Holies, only the High Priest dared to go once a year to make atonement for the people. A rope was tied about his waist in case he offended during the sacrifice.
The people of Israel were called to present themselves to God at sacrifices and festivals several times a year. In human realms, things were seldom so regular. Depending on how large the kingdom and where a person lived, you could pass your entire life and hear little about the king. Or you might see him at a distance, but few would ever really know him. And this takes us to one of the great tragedies in modern Christianity: So many who profess to believe do not know the one they claim. More than that, they refuse to know Him.
Monday, January 13, 2014
The Concept of the King Part 2: The King's Word is Law
Imagine if you can the following situation: An administrative assistant comes in and hands the CEO of a company an important policy memo. The CEO takes a look at it, and is shocked. The document bears very little resemblance to the document that he dictated. He questions the assistant about the changes, and the assistant says "Well, sir, I was pretty sure that the policy that you dictated wouldn't be very popular in a lot of the offices. I thought that some of the offices might grumble about you, and I know that they would be angry with me, so I decided to changes around it bit. You know: Make it a little easier to take."
I've tried to imagine any number of possible responses from the CEO, but most of them only change in how quickly the assistant is fired and kicked out of the building. While something like this might work well as a plot for a comedy, anything less would be a recipe for certain disaster. A CEO that allowed himself to be overridden so easily could hardly be counted on to stand by any tough decisions that were required. And as soon as the assistant realized how easy it was to impose his will on the boss, it would be the assistant running the company, not the CEO.
And these are the civilized days. In less gentle times, simply approaching a king without invitation could lead to death. Back then, the king's word was law. In the case of the ancient Medes and Persians, that law was so sacred even the king himself could not change it once it had been decreed. It sounds harsh in modern times, and it was, but that doesn't mean that it was without cause. In a time when "state of the art" communication could still involve months at sea or on horseback, things had to be settled the first time. There was no waiting and asking for clarification. You obeyed or not, with consequences to follow. Consequences were likely to be severe. A king that ruled by decree could not allow his words to be changed. If he did, he would no longer be king.
He certainly could not be God.
I've tried to imagine any number of possible responses from the CEO, but most of them only change in how quickly the assistant is fired and kicked out of the building. While something like this might work well as a plot for a comedy, anything less would be a recipe for certain disaster. A CEO that allowed himself to be overridden so easily could hardly be counted on to stand by any tough decisions that were required. And as soon as the assistant realized how easy it was to impose his will on the boss, it would be the assistant running the company, not the CEO.
And these are the civilized days. In less gentle times, simply approaching a king without invitation could lead to death. Back then, the king's word was law. In the case of the ancient Medes and Persians, that law was so sacred even the king himself could not change it once it had been decreed. It sounds harsh in modern times, and it was, but that doesn't mean that it was without cause. In a time when "state of the art" communication could still involve months at sea or on horseback, things had to be settled the first time. There was no waiting and asking for clarification. You obeyed or not, with consequences to follow. Consequences were likely to be severe. A king that ruled by decree could not allow his words to be changed. If he did, he would no longer be king.
He certainly could not be God.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
The Concept of the King - Part 1
There are times when I think that America was a bit hasty in tossing off the monarchy concept entirely at our founding. Not that I have any desire to be ruled by kings or queens or any other strain of local royalty, but there are some practical reasons for a token monarchy even in this day and age. I would much rather have a charming, well-bred sophisticate representing the nation at sporting and humanitarian event than a president. Having very little power to deliver anything, expectations would be limited from the start, as would the temptation to promise the impossible. A king or queen would also not feel duty-bound to verbally assault his political opponents at every event. I think that would make him an instant favorite on the national scene, and improve the level of civility in politics immensely.
One of the main characteristics of royalty that has faded from memory over time, particularly in the West, is the notion of sovereignty. This is hardly surprising. Most Western nations have had some level of democracy for centuries. We are a people of discussion and consensus. The idea of absolute authority, or any absolutes for that matter, is frightening to people today. Though millions of others may still live under similar conditions today, they are far from us. Dwelling too hard on the fact induces a moral reaction akin to nausea, so we do not. We simply go on ordering our worlds according to our own perceptions and concepts, of which royalty has no part. And in doing so, we miss a great opportunity for understanding.
The Lord is a king. More than that, the Lord is THE King. The Lord is sovereign. He was the original king, and the authority by which many others, rightly or wrongly, claimed the authority for their kingship. He is the one who is worthy, not only of worship, but of obedience. He sets the standard, because He is the standard.
The church has often gone to great lengths to assure the world of the mercy and tenderness of Christ, the love and forgiveness available. I understand the reasoning. This aspect of God's character was so important that He demonstrated it by coming and dying for all mankind. As such, it can never be over-emphasized, and that's the truth. And here's another truth: God is still a King.
If we embrace Christ as Savior, but reject Him as Lord, we still are trusting in only half a God. That can have consequences.
One of the main characteristics of royalty that has faded from memory over time, particularly in the West, is the notion of sovereignty. This is hardly surprising. Most Western nations have had some level of democracy for centuries. We are a people of discussion and consensus. The idea of absolute authority, or any absolutes for that matter, is frightening to people today. Though millions of others may still live under similar conditions today, they are far from us. Dwelling too hard on the fact induces a moral reaction akin to nausea, so we do not. We simply go on ordering our worlds according to our own perceptions and concepts, of which royalty has no part. And in doing so, we miss a great opportunity for understanding.
The Lord is a king. More than that, the Lord is THE King. The Lord is sovereign. He was the original king, and the authority by which many others, rightly or wrongly, claimed the authority for their kingship. He is the one who is worthy, not only of worship, but of obedience. He sets the standard, because He is the standard.
The church has often gone to great lengths to assure the world of the mercy and tenderness of Christ, the love and forgiveness available. I understand the reasoning. This aspect of God's character was so important that He demonstrated it by coming and dying for all mankind. As such, it can never be over-emphasized, and that's the truth. And here's another truth: God is still a King.
If we embrace Christ as Savior, but reject Him as Lord, we still are trusting in only half a God. That can have consequences.
Monday, January 6, 2014
Jiminy Justice and Our Crickit-in-Chief
Always let your conscience be your guide.
These words, voiced by a wise and well-dressed insect, first echoed across the silver screen in 1940 to the delight of audiences across the nation. And, while not perfect, the advice is generally sound. While there are any number of people around happy to steer you this way or that on all manner of decisions, the responsibility for our actions is ultimately ours. That can also include consequences, both good and bad.
It makes sense then that in a free society the government would allow the people as much latitude as possible to follow the dictates of that conscience when taking action. That's what the Founding Fathers intended when they framed the Constitution. That's why they included the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, limiting the actions that Congress could take to infringe upon the rights of the people both to speak and act upon matters of conscience. Sadly, it seems that no branch on government holds those protections as binding in a modern age, least of all the President.
The latest evidence of this disregard came as the Attorney General filed suit against a group of Catholic nuns, the Little Sisters of Mercy. This charity, like many religious groups, wants no part of the mandate to provide contraception to employees, whether through funding of their own or through a third party exemption. Either method, they insist would violate their religious principles. The President, through the Attorney General, insists that no violation of conscience exists. The Little Sisters disagree, and are willing to fight for their beliefs. It's a battle neither side feels they can afford to lose.
Once upon a time, not so long ago, a standard liberal refrain was "you can't legislate morality." Conservative myself, it was a refrain I agreed with. In more recent times, it seems that liberals concern themselves with little except legislating morality, after defining it to suit their preferences. Several years ago, while the battle over "gay marriage" was still largely in the debate stage, the standard retort to anyone opposing the position was that if you opposed gay marriage, simply "don't get one." I attempted to explain to many at the time that adopting such unions inevitably resulted in the loss of freedoms of other citizens in favor of privileges for the minority. I was met with anything from polite skepticism to mockery at the time. Since then, I have been shown correct by any objective standard as people in California have had several referendums nullified, denying millions of people due process. In states that have adopted such unions, business people attempting to avoid participating in such unions on religious grounds have been threatened with loss of business licenses, fines, and harassment. Clearly, relying on a personal conscience is frowned upon.
Government frowns begin early, as school literature takes a definite positive position towards gay parenting and relationships. This is rather strange, considering that the CDC reports that overall those practicing the gay lifestyle are still many times more likely to be involved in the transmission of STD's than their straight counterparts, and the most comprehensive study done to date on gay parenting shows significantly higher incidences of promiscuity, abuse, and depression in children adopted by two gay parents.
Any specific at this point is merely a symptom, however. The problem is that the government is acting not simply as a legal authority, but also as the arbiter of public morality. This is a task that it was never intended to assume. Assuming the Affordable Care Act is not overturned, agents of this government will have nearly unlimited access to the most personal details of everyone in the country. That combined with the desire for control they have already exhibited, can only end in the worst kind of tyranny.
These words, voiced by a wise and well-dressed insect, first echoed across the silver screen in 1940 to the delight of audiences across the nation. And, while not perfect, the advice is generally sound. While there are any number of people around happy to steer you this way or that on all manner of decisions, the responsibility for our actions is ultimately ours. That can also include consequences, both good and bad.
It makes sense then that in a free society the government would allow the people as much latitude as possible to follow the dictates of that conscience when taking action. That's what the Founding Fathers intended when they framed the Constitution. That's why they included the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, limiting the actions that Congress could take to infringe upon the rights of the people both to speak and act upon matters of conscience. Sadly, it seems that no branch on government holds those protections as binding in a modern age, least of all the President.
The latest evidence of this disregard came as the Attorney General filed suit against a group of Catholic nuns, the Little Sisters of Mercy. This charity, like many religious groups, wants no part of the mandate to provide contraception to employees, whether through funding of their own or through a third party exemption. Either method, they insist would violate their religious principles. The President, through the Attorney General, insists that no violation of conscience exists. The Little Sisters disagree, and are willing to fight for their beliefs. It's a battle neither side feels they can afford to lose.
Once upon a time, not so long ago, a standard liberal refrain was "you can't legislate morality." Conservative myself, it was a refrain I agreed with. In more recent times, it seems that liberals concern themselves with little except legislating morality, after defining it to suit their preferences. Several years ago, while the battle over "gay marriage" was still largely in the debate stage, the standard retort to anyone opposing the position was that if you opposed gay marriage, simply "don't get one." I attempted to explain to many at the time that adopting such unions inevitably resulted in the loss of freedoms of other citizens in favor of privileges for the minority. I was met with anything from polite skepticism to mockery at the time. Since then, I have been shown correct by any objective standard as people in California have had several referendums nullified, denying millions of people due process. In states that have adopted such unions, business people attempting to avoid participating in such unions on religious grounds have been threatened with loss of business licenses, fines, and harassment. Clearly, relying on a personal conscience is frowned upon.
Government frowns begin early, as school literature takes a definite positive position towards gay parenting and relationships. This is rather strange, considering that the CDC reports that overall those practicing the gay lifestyle are still many times more likely to be involved in the transmission of STD's than their straight counterparts, and the most comprehensive study done to date on gay parenting shows significantly higher incidences of promiscuity, abuse, and depression in children adopted by two gay parents.
Any specific at this point is merely a symptom, however. The problem is that the government is acting not simply as a legal authority, but also as the arbiter of public morality. This is a task that it was never intended to assume. Assuming the Affordable Care Act is not overturned, agents of this government will have nearly unlimited access to the most personal details of everyone in the country. That combined with the desire for control they have already exhibited, can only end in the worst kind of tyranny.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Desperate America
For years, the television show "Desperate Housewives" was one of my Sunday night guilty pleasures. There were those I ran across who said that it was glorifying any number of immoral lifestyles. I disagreed. While there may have been a season of profit for all manner of misdeeds, inevitably there were consequences. Often, the consequences were appropriate. Sometimes people learned from the consequences, and sometimes they did not. In that respect, if no other, the show struck me as amazingly true-to-life.
To me the consequences were never as starkly displayed as they were in the very first episode. As one of the husbands was away doing business, one of the wives was at home, doing (ahem) the lawn boy. At one point in the discussion afterward, as she is complaining about her life as it is, the lad asks why she got married. She replied that her husband had promised to give her everything she had ever wanted, and when pressed further, she confirmed that yes, he had kept his word. That left him with a final question: "Then why are you here with me?"
"Because I wanted all the wrong things," she replied.
I had to give the writers respect for that one. It was original conflict, and the one that never goes out of style, as much a part of today as it was right back at the beginning. People have an infinite talent for wanting the wrong things. And even when we discover that one "thing" that we have been after is the "wrong thing," that still doesn't mean that we won't go after something else that is just as wrong. It seems to be our nature. We ignore that at our peril.
Right now, there are many in America, and the rest of the world, that are a lot like that particular housewife. They are very attached to the stuff that others provide for them, they feel absolutely entitled to it as a matter of fact. But they don't really appreciate it, and it doesn't make them happy. It can't, because deep down it reminds them that they are not doing for themselves. That's a great way to live for a domestic pet, and acceptable for those truly disabled, but for a human being still able to work, with more than a shred of dignity left, it's a rotten existence. Fortunately (or not?), stay on the roles very long and the dignity goes pretty fast.
Some people might call this kind of indefinite support charity. Others might call it using government to take care of people. Honestly, it is neither. Charity by its nature is voluntary, which cuts out anything to do with the government. And government is not equipped to "care." Anyone who has ever had consistent dealings with the IRS, the DMV, and Postal Service knows what I am talking about. The best that you can hope for is a reasonable amount of professionalism as they accomplish their duties. The worst is the stuff of the evening news. Most falls somewhere in between.
I bring up the subject of benefits because it is likely to become a hot-button issue this year. Unemployment benefits for many have already stretched out to the allowed maximum of 99 weeks, with people clamoring for another extension. This will be a heavy burden on an economy that, despite administration claims, is still weak and likely to get worse under the demands this year of Obamacare and several areas raising the minimum wage. The final pieces of the discouraging puzzle are the annual deficits, and total national debt. We could not afford the benefits we had before. We cannot afford the increased structure that begins this year. Additional taxes will not fill the hole. It is not a question of if people lose benefits, but when, how, and how much debt continues to accrue to future generations.
Most of our leaders have already shown that they are unwilling to make the hard choices needed to correct the situation. It is up to the voters to express their will. Unless the nation gets a spine back, and quickly, things are going to be getting a lot more desperate around here soon.
To me the consequences were never as starkly displayed as they were in the very first episode. As one of the husbands was away doing business, one of the wives was at home, doing (ahem) the lawn boy. At one point in the discussion afterward, as she is complaining about her life as it is, the lad asks why she got married. She replied that her husband had promised to give her everything she had ever wanted, and when pressed further, she confirmed that yes, he had kept his word. That left him with a final question: "Then why are you here with me?"
"Because I wanted all the wrong things," she replied.
I had to give the writers respect for that one. It was original conflict, and the one that never goes out of style, as much a part of today as it was right back at the beginning. People have an infinite talent for wanting the wrong things. And even when we discover that one "thing" that we have been after is the "wrong thing," that still doesn't mean that we won't go after something else that is just as wrong. It seems to be our nature. We ignore that at our peril.
Right now, there are many in America, and the rest of the world, that are a lot like that particular housewife. They are very attached to the stuff that others provide for them, they feel absolutely entitled to it as a matter of fact. But they don't really appreciate it, and it doesn't make them happy. It can't, because deep down it reminds them that they are not doing for themselves. That's a great way to live for a domestic pet, and acceptable for those truly disabled, but for a human being still able to work, with more than a shred of dignity left, it's a rotten existence. Fortunately (or not?), stay on the roles very long and the dignity goes pretty fast.
Some people might call this kind of indefinite support charity. Others might call it using government to take care of people. Honestly, it is neither. Charity by its nature is voluntary, which cuts out anything to do with the government. And government is not equipped to "care." Anyone who has ever had consistent dealings with the IRS, the DMV, and Postal Service knows what I am talking about. The best that you can hope for is a reasonable amount of professionalism as they accomplish their duties. The worst is the stuff of the evening news. Most falls somewhere in between.
I bring up the subject of benefits because it is likely to become a hot-button issue this year. Unemployment benefits for many have already stretched out to the allowed maximum of 99 weeks, with people clamoring for another extension. This will be a heavy burden on an economy that, despite administration claims, is still weak and likely to get worse under the demands this year of Obamacare and several areas raising the minimum wage. The final pieces of the discouraging puzzle are the annual deficits, and total national debt. We could not afford the benefits we had before. We cannot afford the increased structure that begins this year. Additional taxes will not fill the hole. It is not a question of if people lose benefits, but when, how, and how much debt continues to accrue to future generations.
Most of our leaders have already shown that they are unwilling to make the hard choices needed to correct the situation. It is up to the voters to express their will. Unless the nation gets a spine back, and quickly, things are going to be getting a lot more desperate around here soon.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
A Hazy Future for Colorado
By now most people have heard that Colorado "legalized" the recreational use of marijuana. I use the scare quotes because it really is a huge fiction all around. What it amounts to is an agreement between the state and the citizens that local forces won't arrest or prosecute under certain conditions in exchange for a certain amount of control and tax revenue.
Under federal law, the possession, use, and sale of marijuana is still illegal, and the Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutionality. Whether or not the Court should have is one of many questionable decisions for another time, but under the current system the Federal Government is still bound to uphold the law. Given the track record of the current administration, recreational users in Colorado are probably safe from prosecution. If they claim they are illegal aliens, they are probably safer. For the moment however, I am less concerned about the legal aspects of the situation than the social and economic impacts.
Libertarians have been advocating for drug legalization for as long as I can remember. While I do not agree with their position, I cannot honestly say that they do not have some good points. The "war on drugs" that has been waged in the United States has been costly on many levels. The cost of police, investigations, courts, prisons, and other miscellaneous expenses have been staggering. And these losses do not even begin to account for the personal losses of the prison, the injuries and death of the enforcement officers. These are also great tragedies. Nevertheless, if I were in Colorado I would have still voted against legalization.
Going back to an earlier blog, whenever you lower the cost of something, you tend to get more of it. By removing the threat of prison for possession and use of marijuana in Colorado, you will have more of it. How much more? I don't know. How much is there now? I don't know. It's difficult to tell. I'm not aware of a quick and easy test for pot intoxication as there is for alcohol. I do know that detectable amounts can remain in a person's blood for up to month after heavy usage. Given that, how long are "affected?" How long before your taxi driver is okay to drive, before your childcare worker is competent to look after your child? What are the legal standards? Are there any legal standards? What about the " 'Take It Outside' " Campaign?" People aren't supposed to smoke cigarettes inside to preserve the indoor air quality for their children, but my understanding is that you are only supposed to use recreational marijuana indoors, so if you have children...?
Advocates point to studies and examples in Europe to claim that ending the ban on all drugs would be a great net positive for the U.S. I'm skeptical of the claims if, for no other reason then that Americans are not Europeans. We have always been a rougher, more aggressive culture. We push things harder, including our addictions. We also tend to drive a lot more, making our impaired time more dangerous for those on the roads with us. The only thing we know for sure is that there will be fewer arrests for low level possession of marijuana in Colorado. The other questions, the really important ones, will take decades to answer. The saddest part, at least for me, is that by then I don't think the answers will make a bit of difference one way or the other.
Under federal law, the possession, use, and sale of marijuana is still illegal, and the Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutionality. Whether or not the Court should have is one of many questionable decisions for another time, but under the current system the Federal Government is still bound to uphold the law. Given the track record of the current administration, recreational users in Colorado are probably safe from prosecution. If they claim they are illegal aliens, they are probably safer. For the moment however, I am less concerned about the legal aspects of the situation than the social and economic impacts.
Libertarians have been advocating for drug legalization for as long as I can remember. While I do not agree with their position, I cannot honestly say that they do not have some good points. The "war on drugs" that has been waged in the United States has been costly on many levels. The cost of police, investigations, courts, prisons, and other miscellaneous expenses have been staggering. And these losses do not even begin to account for the personal losses of the prison, the injuries and death of the enforcement officers. These are also great tragedies. Nevertheless, if I were in Colorado I would have still voted against legalization.
Going back to an earlier blog, whenever you lower the cost of something, you tend to get more of it. By removing the threat of prison for possession and use of marijuana in Colorado, you will have more of it. How much more? I don't know. How much is there now? I don't know. It's difficult to tell. I'm not aware of a quick and easy test for pot intoxication as there is for alcohol. I do know that detectable amounts can remain in a person's blood for up to month after heavy usage. Given that, how long are "affected?" How long before your taxi driver is okay to drive, before your childcare worker is competent to look after your child? What are the legal standards? Are there any legal standards? What about the " 'Take It Outside' " Campaign?" People aren't supposed to smoke cigarettes inside to preserve the indoor air quality for their children, but my understanding is that you are only supposed to use recreational marijuana indoors, so if you have children...?
Advocates point to studies and examples in Europe to claim that ending the ban on all drugs would be a great net positive for the U.S. I'm skeptical of the claims if, for no other reason then that Americans are not Europeans. We have always been a rougher, more aggressive culture. We push things harder, including our addictions. We also tend to drive a lot more, making our impaired time more dangerous for those on the roads with us. The only thing we know for sure is that there will be fewer arrests for low level possession of marijuana in Colorado. The other questions, the really important ones, will take decades to answer. The saddest part, at least for me, is that by then I don't think the answers will make a bit of difference one way or the other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)